Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Are you able to clarify since you've also done some work on Earths magnetoshpere

What's going on is what is written down there.

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

Results. We find that a shock-like structure is formed upstream of the comet and acts as an electromagnetic generator, similar to the bow shock at Earth that slows down the solar wind. The Poynting flux transports electromagnetic energy toward the inner coma, where newly born cometary ions are accelerated. Upstream of the shock-like structure, we find local energy transfer from solar wind ions to cometary ions. We show that mass loading can be a local process with a direct transfer of energy, but also part of a dynamo system with electromagnetic generators and loads.

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

What I said is comets are rock but not really knowing the Rosetta mob didn’t have a name for a mixture of ices and dust. So reality check said we, the Royal we, call it rock for WANT of a better term.

So we call comets rock but not actual fair dinkum bona fide true blue rock but a highly porous mixture of ices and dust with a soft fluffy outer layer, a hard crunchy shell and the reminder of said ice and dust mix.

Some said this mix contained MOSTLY ice but data appears to say MOSTLY dust.

So just for ease of conversation we’ll all call it rock as but not actual rock. It’s seems it was just an unfortunate use of the the term that our understanding of cometary nuclei is evolving mostly toward ROCK along with this CONSOLIDATED MATERIAL or BEDROCK and FRACTURED LAYERED TERRAIN. So you see rock is just easier to write 4 letters.

Now steenkth, are you aware of the electric field centred on the rocky nucleus?

Now we have a new naming problem and we have only just come to an agreement on the rocky looking mainly dust with some ice mixture covered by a hard shell of consolidated materiel being called ROCK because astronomers did not have a name for this mix previously.

so now we have electromagnetic structure connected by electric currents in circuits that can as a load on this circuit or as particle accelerators. astronomers don't have a name for these structures so we call them plasma double layers as this it what these structure look like on paper.

So now we have comets are rock but not actual real rock and double layers that maybe plasma structures very similar to electric double layers.

So now we have comets are rock but not actual real rock and double layers that maybe plasma structures very similar to electric double layers.

Nope, no rock, no double layers. And not a jot of evidence for either. No scientist on the planet is claiming that there is. No discharges, no EDM (lol). I'm sorry, but this woo is as dead now as it always was. An evidence-free zone of scientifically illiterate woo from people who couldn't find their own arses with an extra pair of hands.

__________________“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

Nope, just amazed that somebody can be so thick as to misunderstand yet another paper, and pretend that it has anything to do with the unscientific electric comet insanity, which has been thoroughly debunked.

__________________“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

Nope, no rock, no double layers. And not a jot of evidence for either. No scientist on the planet is claiming that there is. No discharges, no EDM (lol). I'm sorry, but this woo is as dead now as it always was. An evidence-free zone of scientifically illiterate woo from people who couldn't find their own arses with an extra pair of hands.

Nope, just amazed that somebody can be so thick as to misunderstand yet another paper, and pretend that it has anything to do with the unscientific electric comet insanity, which has been thoroughly debunked.

Quote:

Abstract

In recent years, much evidence has been accumulated which supports the existence of spatially limited regions of strong electric fields (>100 mV/m) parallel to the magnetic field. Evidence which will be reviewed comes from rocket measurements, satellite observations, and plasma cloud releases above the polar ionosphere. The most plausible explanation of such structures is provided by the concept of double layers or electrostatic shocks, which are double layers moving in relation to the plasma. We also review some recent laboratory investigations of double layers which show that double layers can exist for long periods of time. The production of these structures requires large currents.

Nope, just amazed that somebody can be so thick as to misunderstand yet another paper, and pretend that it has anything to do with the unscientific electric comet insanity, which has been thoroughly debunked.

Please provide the papers where these structures Wrt comets has been discussed before in peer reviewed mainstream papers.

Please provide the papers where these structures Wrt comets has been discussed before in peer reviewed mainstream papers.

Why would I? Nobody is claiming that there are DLs, or EDM (lol). The electric comet is a busted flush. And the author of the paper, J. Lindkvist, has his email on the paper. Shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to contact him and clarify whatever it is that you are misunderstanding. What are you waiting for?

__________________“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

Why would I? Nobody is claiming that there are DLs, or EDM (lol). The electric comet is a busted flush. And the author of the paper, J. Lindkvist, has his email on the paper. Shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to contact him and clarify whatever it is that you are misunderstanding. What are you waiting for?

so now we have electromagnetic structure connected by electric currents in circuits that can as a load on this circuit or as particle accelerators. astronomers don't have a name for these structures so we call them plasma double layers as this it what these structure look like on paper.

If you would read the papers then you would know this is wrong, why would astrophysicist (not astronomers) not have a name for these structures?
You're jus make up stuff again.

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

Sorry mate, i'm confused. these "shock-like structures" can act as loads and generators?

Do you think there is an electrostatic potential in this shock, like the one you found in Earths magnetosphere, tusenfem?

Not surprised that you are confused.
Why not read the papers and the citations in that paper and you will know.

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

there is one important word that Goertz writes in his abstract which you seem to miss

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

Aims. We wish to investigate the energy conversion between particles and electromagnetic fields and determine the location where it occurs in the plasma environment of comets.

Methods. We used a hybrid plasma model that included photoionization, and we considered two cases of the solar extreme ultraviolet flux. Other parameters corresponded to the conditions of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko at a heliocentric distance of 1.5 AU.

Results. We find that a shock-like structure is formed upstream of the comet and acts as an electromagnetic generator, similar to the bow shock at Earth that slows down the solar wind. The Poynting flux transports electromagnetic energy toward the inner coma, where newly born cometary ions are accelerated. Upstream of the shock-like structure, we find local energy transfer from solar wind ions to cometary ions. We show that mass loading can be a local process with a direct transfer of energy, but also part of a dynamo system with electromagnetic generators and loads.

Conclusions. The energization of cometary ions is governed by a dynamo system for weak ionization, but changes into a large conversion region with local transfer of energy directly from solar wind protons for high ionization.

More insults and stupid question to derail from his electric comet insanity

Originally Posted by Sol88

Yup, your a complete muppet!

More insults and stupid questions to derail from his electric comet insanity

The more than 9 years of this thread has presented facts about astronomy many times:

Comets are left over from the formation of the Solar System.

The Solar System formed from the collapse of a nebula.

This is not cosmology !
The nebula hypothesis would exist even if the Big Bang was never proposed or was shown to be invalid. Consider the hypothetical situation of the Steady State Model being currently valid. There would sill be nebula. Solar systems would still form from their collapse.

A couple of "new naming problem" lies to derail from his electric comet insanity

Originally Posted by Sol88

Now we have a new naming problem and .....

A couple of "new naming problem" lies to derail from his electric comet insanity.

Comets are actually made up of ices and dust. This is loosely packed by their weak gravity so it looks like "rock". Astronomers sometimes use terrestrial geological terms to describe this ices and dust material. This is because they do not know of anyone insane enough to think that it is actual rock. If they knew about the deluded, lying Thunderbolts cult, astronomers they would ignore the cult for the mutters that they show themselves to be.

A lying delusion of "plasma double layers" when Energy conversion in cometary atmospheres is clear. It is a "bow shock" forming a generator of ions and other areas combining ions (loads). That is a "dynamo system for weak ionization" (67P far form the Sun) that becomes insignificant for strong photoionization (67P near to the Sun).

This is possible double layers forming in Earth's ionosphere and magnetosphere. Comets do not have any magnetosphere. Comet coma are not Earth's ionosphere. There is no evidence of double layers at comets.
The paper is a rather obscure review published in 1979 and only cited 45 times.

A stupid "structures" question to derail from his electric comet insanity

Originally Posted by Sol88

Please provide the papers where these structures Wrt comets has been discussed before in peer reviewed mainstream papers.

A stupid "structures" question to derail from his electric comet insanity.

jonesdave116 points out the misunderstanding of a geophysics paper and gets a stupid question about a different irrelevant paper!

If Sol88 was interested in anything other than spewing out the electric comet insanity over the last 9 years then he would know how to do literature searches. Or even what a scientific paper is! They tend to report new results so it is possible that these structures in this model have not been reported before.

A stupid "structures" question to derail from his electric comet insanity.

jonesdave116 points out the misunderstanding of a geophysics paper and gets a stupid question about a different irrelevant paper!

If Sol88 was interested in anything other than spewing out the electric comet insanity over the last 9 years then he would know how to do literature searches. Or even what a scientific paper is! They tend to report new results so it is possible that these structures in this model have not been reported before.

[/url]

Again you are correct it's ALL new to the mainstream big bangers...like you!

Sorry to tell you this, but in plasma physics there have always been electric field, but NOT THE ELECTRIC FIELDS THAT THE ELECTRIC COMET IDEA IS PROPOSING.
Just the presence of an electric field does not "prove the EC idea" (I stop using even model, because there is absolutely nothing there).
Unless you come up with evidence and a model actually describing this electric field around the sun and the adoption of the potential by a comet and the enormous discharges that are talked about by the thunderguys, then and only then can there be any further discussion.
I do not have to defend mainstream physics, which are backed up by good science that actually works, to people coming with "electric ideas" who don't have even the slightest comprehension of physics let alone plasma physics.
EC is dead, unless the thunderguys (or Sol) take actual data into their hands and show that their ideas have merit.

What a publish in a mainstream publication???

imagine that! one paper proves the mainstream has been spreading fairedust for last 70 odd years!!!

Yup I can see that geting published!

I mean you only just come to grips with MASSIVE charge separation at comet and the complete and utter failure of MHD at explaining ANYTHING electrical going on at comets.

These plasma structures (electric fields) that act as as loads and generators are DOUBLE LAYERS!!

so you think that a dl can be either a load or a generator ????

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

Why can there NOT be double layers at a comet? All the bits and bobs are there.

Best scientific excuse, lets go...

turbulence for one

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

imagine that! one paper proves the mainstream has been spreading fairedust for last 70 odd years!!!

Yup I can see that geting published!

I mean you only just come to grips with MASSIVE charge separation at comet and the complete and utter failure of MHD at explaining ANYTHING electrical going on at comets.

AND

There the problem...

ec is not even trying! don't look at available data! nothing! they only complain about mainstream nit taking them seriously, but what is there to be taken seriously when the ec gang don't even try to show their ideas right by using actual data? even the comments above about mhd shows that you have not the foggiest idea about how plasma physics works. this is such a pointless discussion
btw have you found the important word in goertz's abstract already?

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

ec is not even trying! don't look at available data! nothing! they only complain about mainstream nit taking them seriously, but what is there to be taken seriously when the ec gang don't even try to show their ideas right by using actual data? even the comments above about mhd shows that you have not the foggiest idea about how plasma physics works. this is such a pointless discussion
btw have you found the important word in goertz's abstract already?

Don Scott wrote a paper on Birkeland currents completely nailed it and nothing but venom from the mainstream!!!

So the boys are going it alone now with SAFIRE.

Seems thev'e already out done the "big boys"!

Tokamaks, stellerators...all bull excrement.. ha ha ha giggle snort. assume all they need is a few more billion dollars and bingo. Well we are not quite there, so can we a few more billion please, we are nearly there!

ec is not even trying! don't look at available data! nothing! they only complain about mainstream nit taking them seriously, but what is there to be taken seriously when the ec gang don't even try to show their ideas right by using actual data? even the comments above about mhd shows that you have not the foggiest idea about how plasma physics works. this is such a pointless discussion
btw have you found the important word in goertz's abstract already?

Told you MHD was not applicable at comets. That there was charge separation and the violation of quasi-neutrality!

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.